get_point_distribution

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying that it returns a JSON array of point distribution data for all teams, and details the season parameter's default and earliest available year. This adds useful context about output and parameter behavior beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and output type sufficiently. It is self-contained and gives an agent all necessary information to decide when and how to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only the parameter name/type with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the season parameter's format ('2024'), default to current season, and valid range (earliest 1999), which is essential for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving team point distribution breakdown, specifying how teams score (2-pointers, 3-pointers, free throws) and where points allowed come from. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_efficiency or get_four_factors, which focus on other metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it relative to sibling tools. It implies usage for point distribution queries, but lacks direct references to alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.